It's interesting that Apple has appeared to have buried the Editor video, which featured Premiere. It's still on YouTube, but set as "unlisted". It no longer appears on the Apple YouTube page, like it did on the first day.

EDIT: It now looks like the link is completely unavailable. Conspiracy theories anyone :)

[Craig Seeman]"But all the other videos list Adobe Creative Cloud.
Not a single one lists FCPX or Motion."

I may have missed it, but I see no such listing. Non-Apple software is only shown in screenshots.

The others show non-competing Adobe apps, mainly Photoshop. The one in which an app is really mentioned is the music one, which highlights Logic. The one in which Premiere was used featured an app that directly competes. Even though the app itself wasn't discussed, only the editor's creative thoughts.

A few years back, Apple did an ad in which iPhone movies from all over the world where quickly gathered and turned into a spot. It was directed by Luke Scott (https://nofilmschool.com/2014/02/apple-1-24-14-iphone-ad-commercial-jake-scott). In doing research for an article, I asked Apple PR about the editing tool used and essentially received a "nothing more to say" response. I found out later the editor cutting it had used FCP7, which is obviously something Apple didn't want to promote.

My guess is that there's nothing really nefarious here. Rather, that someone in Apple PR may have felt that something so obvious as using a competing product would take away from the message of the commercial. It could also be that the video is being re-edited to feature fewer or less prominent shots of Premiere in the B-roll, and thus may surface again later.

I'm sure it was just an oversight on their part. I'm never surprised when I see blown marketing these days. I see it all the time at the highest levels. No way I would have had a competitor's product in my spot. All the work was in the animation. Could have been cut on X and if I was in charge it would have been. Along with new Macs in the shot. Then again, I spent years shooting for AB. You knew better than to have a Coors can in your shot.

[Tony West]" Could have been cut on X and if I was in charge it would have been."

That kind of mandate is ridiculous. A project with a budget as large as the Apple holiday spot is all about the creative vision of the Director or Creative Director and the production team executing to the best of their ability on that vision. If by chance the production company uses FCPX then it's a slight bonus for Apple marketing but the primary goal is to create a memorable spot that resonates with the mass audience and whatever tools the creative team uses to achieve that goal should be supported. The same would hold true for any project.

[greg janza]"That kind of mandate is ridiculous. A project with a budget as large as the Apple holiday spot is all about the creative vision of the Director or Creative Director and the production team executing to the best of their ability on that vision. If by chance the production company uses FCPX then it's a slight bonus for Apple marketing but the primary goal is to create a memorable spot that resonates with the mass audience and whatever tools the creative team uses to achieve that goal should be supported. The same would hold true for any project.
"

THIS.

It's also important to understand that when the creative budget is in the millions for a huge company signature ad — it's still utterly dwarfed by the media budget that gets spent to support it. If the production process contains X financial risk - the MEDIA spend contains X times 10 risk.

Whether the pros charged with executing the spot elect to use a RED, a Mitchell BMC film camera, or Fisher Price pixel vision rig to shoot the spot with - THAT is what will get used. And it doesn't matter a jot if somebody in the echelon loves or hates Red, Arri or Fisher Price as a company. Gear selection is WAY down the list of what matters at that level.

Once again, its never the piano that matters - it's the piano player.

Of course, pianos do occasionally fail...

Here's proof.

Enjoy a bit of holliday viewing when the equipment failure isn't something on YOUR shoot!

What's ridiculous, is having your competitors product in your promotion and thinking that's OK. Would you go ahead have a bunch of HP computers in there also, if that's what they were working on?

[greg janza]" the primary goal is to create a memorable spot that resonates with the mass audience"

No. The primary goal is to market the company's products and do that by making a memorable spot. A bonus would be to not embarrass the company while doing it. It's not all that hard. Companies make request like that all the time (as they should).

"Would you mind not getting shots of Ford Plaza while we are doing the Toyota promo?"

Ah....OK. Somebody actually has to be told that?

If they would have said, I'd like you to cut this on X if that's possible I'm sure they would have said OK, because they want that work (even if they had to call somebody to assist).

[Tony West]"If they would have said, I'd like you to cut this on X if that's possible I'm sure they would have said OK, because they want that work (even if they had to call somebody to assist)."

While that might work in theory, it doesn't happen in practice. Internally Apple owns a bit of everything when it comes to hardware and software. There was a lot of banter here when Apple acquired Beats and everyone found out they had Avid systems in-house, because of a job ad. I have worked with an ex-Apple Creative Director who had been initially hired by Apple, because he was a skilled Flame operator and they had Flames in the department he joined.

Apple wants the best talent in order to get the best results. What they use is less important. It may well be that the animation company was selected first because of their work, and possibly secondarily because they were using Macs in the process. But it's quite possible they also used a lot of PCs, too, which simply weren't featured in the BTS videos. Just like Apple's data centers use SuperMicro computers, not Macs for the heavy lifting. And past Apple commercials were cut on FCP "legacy" well after FCPX was in full swing.

[Oliver Peters]"While that might work in theory, it doesn't happen in practice. "

This is the problem right here, I'm not speaking from "theory" I'm speaking from "practice" in my years of working for large corporations. In the world that I work in, it happens exactly that way. In my practice the corporations have all the power, not the person trying to work for them. I don't care how talented you are, you are replaceable to the corp. So when they have said something on jobs I work on you do it, because you know very well if you don't they will have someone who will in your place.

To be honest " It may well be" , "and possibly", "But it's quite possible " those are what I would call theories. You don't really "know" what happened in this case and I don't either. I'm simply saying I would have done what every other company I have worked for in the biz has done. Push my product.

[Oliver Peters]"Apple commercials were cut on FCP "legacy" well after FCPX was in full swing.
"

Yes, and that's silly and wouldn't happen under my watch. It would be different if you had a product that couldn't handle the job, and if you did you shouldn't be making it. If you aren't going to push your own product who will?

When you said the apple person wouldn't tell you what they cut that other spot on that's a problem. If you are embarrassed to say, that should be a clue you shouldn't be doing what you are doing. If they were proud of it then they should have just answered the question. I wouldn't have been in that spot. I would have said, " X of course" and would have given you an odd look for even asking that question : )

[Tony West]"You don't really "know" what happened in this case and I don't either."

Agreed. No argument there. For all we know there may well be other technical reasons, which I've said all along.

[Tony West]"I'm simply saying I would have done what every other company I have worked for in the biz has done. Push my product."

But you see, FCPX may be so under the radar EVEN within Apple, that in spite of the likely layers of approval of rough cuts at the agency and within Apple, this was never flagged as an issue in the first place (assuming that it was).

[Tony West]"Yes, and that's silly and wouldn't happen under my watch. It would be different if you had a product that couldn't handle the job, and if you did you shouldn't be making it. If you aren't going to push your own product who will?"

With that attitude, the few large films that have been cut on FCPX would have never been allowed to have been cut that way. But because the directors were allowed creative freedom, they were.

I do think you are completely missing the point of these videos. It's NOT to promote a specific product - hardware or software. Rather, that you can realize any creative vision with the tools the Mac ecosystem offers - both Apple and third party.

[Tony West]"If you are embarrassed to say, that should be a clue you shouldn't be doing what you are doing"

No, that's not how Apple rolls. Their marketing people are disciplined about message. Those spots were about the iPhone and photographic capabilities. Getting bogged down in a discussion of why X wasn't used would have been counter-productive. They were simply staying on message.

[Tony West]"I would have said, " X of course" and would have given you an odd look for even asking that question : )"

Are you seriously saying you would be willing to lie to help promote the product ?! Really?

[Oliver Peters]"I do think you are completely missing the point of these videos."

I don't know that at all. You are giving YOUR OPINION of what their goal is, and even if that were the case and I don't know that it is, it wouldn't be my goal. You and I disagree on what the goal should be.

[Oliver Peters]"Getting bogged down in a discussion of why X wasn't used would have been counter-productive. "

This is YOUR post Oliver. You didn't post about how this ad made you feel good. You made a post about apple using their competitors product in their ad. The fact that you did that blows up your own argument imho. They can't be happy about a thread like this, and if they are the need more help then I thought.

[Oliver Peters]"Are you seriously saying you would be willing to lie to help promote the product ?! Really?
"

Dude, I wouldn't be lying because I would have actually made sure that my product was used in my own ad campaign. I would have been telling the truth. Seriously!

Or maybe Apple is saying our computers work with all creative software. After all they practically give away FCP X. And all their creative software. Looks to me like they found the artists they liked and went from there. It would not have been hard to hide the interface of the editing tool and just shown them on a Mac and cut to a full screen image of the just edited shot and the response of the collaborative artists. They have made no attempt to compete with Photoshop and although photos can process raw stills pretty well its a very limited editor. FCP X seems to have come of age but they took long enough for most all the pros from FCP 7 to move to other editing software even if they now use FCP X as well.
Its a very subtle add promoting both artistic vision and the Holiday spirit. But as a FCP X user its a bit annoying that they don't care enough to spend money promoting it which would imply they care about the app.

But its also interesting and not in the history of Apple's MO (even though it's first must have app was MS WORD).

[Craig Seeman]"The constant is that Apple is not marketing it's own software even on it's own product pages (iMac Pro)."

Those six videos are showcasing the internal processing power of the mac to bring high end animations life. It's not surprising at all that the software used by all six creators isn't mac software. Programs like Cinema 4D, Maya, Nuke and After Effects are the industry standard for this type of work.

[greg janza]"Programs like Cinema 4D, Maya, Nuke and After Effects are the industry standard for this type of work."

Also listed is Adobe Premiere and Creative Cloud generally.
I won't pretend Motion is After Effects but not demoing any Apple post software on their iMac Pro page does set u a certain marketing message by omission.

One might think Apple bothers with Post Productions software at all is that it sells Apple hardware. Seems Apple doesn't think so according to their recent messaging/marketing.

[greg janza]"Those six videos are showcasing the internal processing power of the mac to bring high end animations life. It's not surprising at all that the software used by all six creators isn't mac software. Programs like Cinema 4D, Maya, Nuke and After Effects are the industry standard for this type of work."

I think another interesting point here is that most of these shops are using Arnold, a CPU bound, 3rd party renderer. I would imagine that a good chunk of these films had to be done partially on Windows or Linux. I saw a note on some of the videos "additional equipment used on final render for some sequences", I took that to mean final render on a farm, and possibly look/shader development on non-Apple hardware. Thinking a bit more about it, this also means that these artists couldn't take advantage of the much faster and small production friendly Redshift, as it only runs on NVIDIA based GPUs.

[Craig Seeman]"The constant is that Apple is not marketing it's own software even on it's own product pages (iMac Pro)."

And will be the case until Apple gets an inhouse A/V team. If not they will be subject to whatever software their agencies use.

At the end of the day its up to the legal teams over there to approve the video and say "hey, these arent apple products - lets replace those shots".

The legal teams have pretty much final cut on everything but if marketing isnt collaborating with the pro app teams which there they probably arent - this will keep happening because of a lack of communication.

[Craig Seeman]"Or they don't know of a single outside agency that uses their post production software. Perhaps that's the case.
"

I would just say Craig, it's their job to find those people and there are plenty of them out there.

I remember years ago as things were starting to change the word would come down that they wanted some diversity on a certain job. I'm sure there were people who said "We don't know any qualified people of color" Then there were those who said "We already got that covered, we got Tony. And just like that I was on that job. I was as qualified as anybody else they knew (in some cases more), as word got around "I don't know anybody" was done, and that's how things change.

Believe me, as an African American in this country and in this industry, I know all about the client saying "We want it this way" and it being exactly that way.

[Tony West]"I would just say Craig, it's their job to find those people and there are plenty of them out there.
"

Which why I'm a bit disappointed with Apple's marketing.
Speaking of diversity that's been an issue with Apple that they are beginning to deal with.
Yet not with their own products.
It's not that they should exclude those using other tools on Macs, it's that their own software is excluding.
They couldn't/didn't bother to find a single example.

I want to start by saying it's a beautiful spot and I love it. Very touching and I don't want to take away from all the hard work everyone put into it. It's a great spot.

[Neil Goodman]" I just dont think there are many A/V vendors out there using X. At least out on the coasts of the good ol US of A which is where most of the agencies are."

I hear what you are saying Neil and that may very well be true, but I don't believe there aren't plenty of skilled people in LA that know how to use X even if it's not what they use all the time. The program is not rocket science.

The narrative here is that they couldn't have used X even if they wanted to because nobody out there uses it.

1. I'm pushing back on that assumption because I don't believe it (I've listed examples on the thread why).

2. They helped reinforce that narrative by doing it the way they did it.

They shouldn't be OK with that narrative and they should actively be working to change it. People with less power and money control their narratives all the time. Maybe work a little harder at it. That's all I'm saying.

[Tony West]"They shouldn't be OK with that narrative and they should actively be working to change it. "

The narrative is Apple hardware was used to create some cool commercials and Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. They will happily sell you a Mac (which comes with Bootcamp) so you can run Windows on it and never touch MacOS. Sometimes Apple pushes a very product specific narrative (like an iPhone being used to shot a high-end commercial or FCPX being used to cut a big film) and sometimes they don't.

Demanding that venders only use Apple solutions creates artificial barriers. Either people that don't typically use X or Motion will get forced into using software they aren't familiar with or you pass on people you'd like to work with since you are only looking for X users. Even job postings for post/production positions at Apple include knowing PPro and AE along with X (I don't remember ever seeing ones asking for Motion knowledge).

Demanding is the wrong word. I don't usually see that. They ask and very politely. "Is there any way we can..............or, "is it possible to ...........and people are tripping over themselves to say yes : ) I think sometimes if they came in and said " Could you guys drop and give me 20? Half the room would hit the floor hahaha. Seriously though, the biggest part of that piece was the animation and the building of the set. They got out of the way there. The next biggest part was the creation of the music. The talent and amazing voice of Billie.

What do you think happened there?

Do you think they showed up and O'Connell just "happened" to use Logic and their hardware? That wasn't discussed in anyway before?

And what about Billie? Did she just "happen" to use an iPhone to create her music?

After getting all those great elements, assembling them was the easiest part. You feel like if they would have asked for X the wheels could have fallen off.

I don't think so. I think given that kind source material most could have brought it home.

[Tony West]"
I hear what you are saying Neil and that may very well be true, but I don't believe there aren't plenty of skilled people in LA that know how to use X even if it's not what they use all the time. The program is not rocket science.

The narrative here is that they couldn't have used X even if they wanted to because nobody out there uses it."

Wether there are plenty of skilled X editors here is irrelevant if the Agencies or places that are getting the Apple bids arent using it. I consider myself a skilled X editor, confident I could've cut that commercial in X or any other platform but at the end of the day that means nothing. Ive worked on many Trailers and promotional content for Apple adn Apple music and am familiar with the marketing and legal teams at each entity respectfully.

Non of which was cut on X, it was never part of the discussion even though i woulda been able to deliver with X, the agency I was working at at the time who had the apple bid was not using X>

So I think your projecting a little bit here because its not down to the editors in this case - its down to the employers.

[Neil Goodman]"ve worked on many Trailers and promotional content for Apple and Apple music and am familiar with the marketing and legal teams at each entity respectfully.

None of which was cut on X, it was never part of the discussion even though i woulda been able to deliver with X, the agency I was working at at the time who had the apple bid was not using X> "

I have a similar experience to Neil's. The software used to create agency pieces or pieces done for production companies is primarily determined by whatever systems are in place at those facilities.

This thread is revealing the larger post production ecosystem that directly affects what software and hardware gets used throughout the industry. And I too share a liking for FCPX but it's myopic to think in terms of prioritizing it's usage by creative teams at production companies.

I still dont think your getting it. Apple cant just come in and say - Hey there so and so agency - we like your creative services BUT - we want you to use FCPX for our work going forward. Agency would decline the work because its a pain in the ass, and for the most part - You cant even advertise you worked on Apple stuff or show it on the company reel, so whats the point of bending over backwards for them?

They have a strict embargo and the general consensus i got from my creative director was, that this shit isnt worth it because we cant show off the work anyway because Apple has such strange embargoes.

[Steve Connor]"[Neil Goodman] "Agency would decline the work because its a pain in the ass, and for the most part - "

Ha! yes "Sorry Apple we don't want your work because you're making us use a different NLE" that would DEFINITELY happen ☺
"

Take a moment to think that Apple has work spread out all over town. They ask you to change your workflow or a small part of it - that ripples through the whole company. New talent maybe - new support, new producers to handle the client. All for work that isn't guaranteed to come back and work you cant show off or use to get other work. Doesnt seem like the smart play.

At the shop Im at now we do accomodate two clients that use Avid - cut their projects in Avid and deliver Avid projects for finishing on their end. It's a huge pain in the ass for our support, AE, and finishing teams team to accomadate that but we do it because those are 10 year long relationships. Worth the squeeze so to speak and we are allowed to showcase their work on our company reels.

Some of these A/V agencies are small companies with like 10-30 people. Taking on and then losing a client like apple could be disastrous for them.

Keep in mind Neil, while this isn't LA, it is the home for the headquarters of some of the largest companies in America. Not to mention the birthplace of Fleishman Hillard who practically invented advertising and public relations. We aren't exactly sitting around here
milking cows ; ) As the ad before some of yaaaw's time used to say, "Don't let the smooth taste fool you"

[Tony West]"Keep in mind Neil, while this isn't LA, it is the home for the headquarters of some of the largest companies in America. Not to mention the birthplace of Fleishman Hillard who practically invented advertising and public relations. We aren't exactly sitting around here
milking cows ; ) As the ad before some of yaaaw's time used to say, "Don't let the smooth taste fool you"
"

I think I know what your implying and your super off base. Clearly we aren't on the same page but thats cool ☺

Yes!
The message is simple … Apple is all about creativity and Apple is a platform used by artists as a labor of LOVE. Still you would think that FCP X would get some exposure in these ads considering that Apple has supported it and has added more and more professional features. Granted slower than the evolution of iPhone's updates.
But to their credit maybe they just made a BTS movie of a team of artists and let the artists do their thing with whatever tools they needed to use as long as the projects were done on a Mac. Another thought and this is kinda a reach -- lots of tech companies copy Apple’s look and feel in their ads to promote their projects. So since it would not be hard to show another project being produced on other companies software and hardware, it would clearly be a copy since Apple didn’t exclude many of the major industry standard tools.
Apple keeps saying in their live events and TV promotions, “Our end users "love" our ...
Tim Cook says that the iPhone is the "most loved" smartphone because it ... Watch the live event and see how we're helping teachers IGNITE the Creativity in EVERY student. Apple's "Gather round" event at the Steve Jobs Theater at Apple Park ... We LOVE that so many customers have the chance to experience our … etc. Its an image thing. Forget about the company being greedy, Apple does this so you will LOVE using their products. They are easy to use thus avoiding pain and they give you pleasure in their results. That's the message. And does MAC play well with all the most regarded apps? YES it does. Do pros use the Macs or are they better on a PC? Up for grabs but we see them in the add using the MACs and they LOVE them.